Article

Total Weight and Axle Loads of Truck Units in the

Transport of Timber Depending on the Timber Cargo
Grzegorz Trzciński 1 , Tadeusz Moskalik 1, * and Rafał Wojtan 2
1 Department of Forest Utilization, Faculty of Forestry, Warsaw University of Life Sciences—SGGW,
Nowoursynowska 159, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland; grzegorz.trzcinski@wl.sggw.pl
2 Division of Dendrology and Forest Production, Faculty of Forestry,
Warsaw University of Life Sciences SGGW, Nowoursynowska 159, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland;
rafal_wojtan@sggw.pl
* Correspondence: tadeusz.moskalik@wl.sggw.pl; Tel.: +48-22-593-8137




Received: 31 January 2018; Accepted: 22 March 2018; Published: 23 March 2018


Abstract: When transporting timber, the high variability of species, assortments and moisture content
of the wood raw material does not allow the weight of the transported timber to be precisely
determined. This often contributes to the excessive weight loading of the entire truck unit. The aim
of the research is to present the variability of the total weight of truck units with wood cargoes
(GVW—gross vehicle weight) depending on the weight of the empty unit and the transported timber
load, as well as to analyze the changes in GVW, unit loads of wood and load on individual truck unit
axles depending on the season. This study analyzes the total weight of truck units for 376 transports
of Scots pine timber at different times of the year. The total weight of the truck units depends on the
weight of an empty unit and the weight of the load. GVW was determined by using a weighbridge to
weigh the vehicles and then the empty unit after unloading. The weight of the load was obtained as
the difference between GVW and the tare. It was found that GVW differed significantly depending
on the truck unit used, ranging from 43.60–58.80 Mg, often exceeding permissible limits for public
roads. The individual axle loads for various truck units were also analyzed. The obtained results
indicate that these loads are more equally distributed in the case of five-axle trucks compared to
six-axle ones.

Keywords: timber transport; axle load; gross vehicle weight; timber load; empty vehicle weight

1. Introduction
Transport plays a vital role in the proper functioning of every economic system. The success of a
company specializing in timber haulage depends not only on the transportation system, but also on
the cooperation of all entities associated with its supply chain [1–3].
The share of costs relating to the transport of wood raw material in relation to the total costs of
forestry activities is significant [4,5]. Its estimated amount is approximately 17%, and this is definitely
a higher share compared to other sectors of the economy. The highest costs of transport operations are
for hauling timber, accounting for 40–60% [6]. In order to increase their efficiency, companies operating
in the timber haulage market try to reduce transport costs, as this is perceived as an important factor
for increasing competitiveness. One of the methods of improving the efficiency of timber transport
is to reduce the variability of loads and maximize the loads, in accordance with applicable public
transport regulations, carried by truck units [5,7,8]. Research conducted in the USA indicates that by
maintaining a uniform timber load weight, suppliers are able to achieve savings of 4–14% [9].
An important element in this respect are the legally-established limits of the permissible total
weight of vehicles. In 1996, the Member States of the European Union adopted Directive 96/53/EC

Forests 2018, 9, 164; doi:10.3390/f9040164 www.mdpi.com/journal/forests

Forests 2018, 9, 164 2 of 12

specifying permissible vehicle weights of 40 Mg and 44 Mg and weights on a single-axle of 100 kN

and double axel of 160 kN [10]. In individual countries, institutions responsible for public transport
and public roads have the power to limit the total weight of a truck unit (gross vehicle weight) with
the simultaneous possibility of limiting permissible axle weights or increasing them in relation to
those specified in EU regulations, as well as indicating the roads to be used by such vehicles [5,11–16].
In Poland, the permissible vehicle weight of a truck and trailer of over four axles has been set at 40 Mg
or 44 Mg for a six-axle vehicle; a truck with a 40-ft intermodal container with a maximal single axle load
of 80 kN and double axel load of 160 kN and for national roads at 100 and 115 kN [17]. In Finland, 7-,
8- and 9-axle truck units are allowed, with a maximal weight of 64, 68 and 76 tonnes, respectively, and
4.4 m in height [18]. The increase of the permissible weight of truck units in Finland contributed to the
reduction of CO2 and NOx emissions and has resulted in economic benefits [19]. Analyses performed
by Palander and Kärhä [20] on transporting timber at the increased permissible loads in Finland
indicate the possibility of reducing the required number of vehicles and transport work conducted
in tonne-kilometers. Estonian experiences show that increasing the weight limit from the current
44–60 Mg would reduce the share of transport costs in roundwood prices from 17.7–14.2% [8]. Vehicles
traveling with a full load and with an increased weight can result in economic and environmental
benefits in the long term [21,22].
In reality, however, when transporting timber, the high variability of the transported assortments
made of different species and the variable moisture content of wood do not allow a precise
determination to be made of the weight of the transported raw wood material [23–26]. These differences
very often influence the excessive weight of the truck unit [27–30]. McDonnell et al. [31] specify that
58–80% of the vehicles exceeded the permissible truck unit weight, and Devlin [32] shows that the gross
vehicle weight (GVW) was exceeded by 60% of the vehicles, of which 20% exceeded the permissible
load capacity specified by the vehicle manufacturer. Research conducted in the USA also showed
significant overloading of vehicles with wood; as much as 88% of the vehicles had a gross vehicle
weight of more than 44 Mg [9].
The volume of the timber harvest in Polish forests has been systematically growing in recent years.
In 2015, 40,247 million m3 were harvested [33]. The units of the State Forests National Forest Holding
plan to harvest over 42 million m3 of timber in 2018. This wood raw material is delivered to several
thousand recipients. This presents a major transport challenge, both in terms of logging operations
and its transport. In most cases, approximately 90% of the transport is conducted by vehicles using
high-tonnage five- or six-axle truck units [25].
The transportation of wood raw material is one of the key operations in forest management,
representing a large share of total costs, and has significant potential for optimization [34–36]. A good
diagnosis of the configuration of timber truck units, their own weight and their potential timber
cargoes, given the large variation in cargo weight, can contribute to improving the efficiency of forest
transport [5,9].
Determining the actual weights of transported timber loads and attempting to link them to GVW
and individual axle loads will allow the overloading of vehicles and exceeded individual axle weights
to be avoided by providing appropriate information to transport companies. The aim of the research
is to present the variability of the total weight of truck units (GVW) with wood cargoes depending
on the weight of the empty unit and the transported timber load, as well as to analyze the changes in
GVW, unit loads of wood and load on individual truck unit axles depending on the season.

2. Materials and Methods

In order to conduct the research and perform the relevant analyses, deliveries were studied to
one of the largest wood buyers in Poland, a sawmill supplied with large-sized timber, both long
logs and shortwood. The transport was conducted by external companies commissioned by the
sawmill. Data for 2016 were collected in four periods: January, at the end of March/beginning of April,
July–August and October–November.
Forests 2018, 9, 164 3 of 12

The gross weight of the truck unit (GVW) expressed in Mg is understood as the actual weight
of the vehicle and trailer or truck unit and semi-trailer with all the equipment, the driver and timber
load. GVW was determined based on weighing the entire truck unit on a weighbridge at the sawmill
at the moment the wood raw material was delivered, and then after unloading, the empty unit was
re-weighed. The actual weight of each load was obtained from the difference of GVW and the tare.
The volume of the load of transported timber, expressed as solid cubic volume (m3 under bark),
was determined on the basis of transport vouchers, on which the payments are based of the delivered
timber from the supplier to the recipient. Large-sized logs were measured individually by each piece.
It should also be noted that when selling timber in Poland and later when it is transported, the given
volumes and conversion factors do not apply to the bark. The share of bark is significant and can
range up to a dozen or so percent for pine logs [26], influencing the weight of the transported cargo.
Therefore, the analysis refers to the weight of the entire load (wood, bark, water) or the weight of 1 m3
of the load.
The load on the individual axles of high tonnage truck units was measured using Model DINI
ARGEO WWSD portable truck scales with a 3590M309 weighing terminal with 0.01 Mg graduation.
The scale system used is fully compliant with Polish regulations and allows vehicles in transit to be
weighed. The loads on the individual wheel axles were measured successively for the whole unit:
the vehicle and the trailer. During the measurement, the scales were placed on a flat maneuvering
area of hardened concrete paving blocks, with no depressions. It was assumed that such a method
of measuring the weight on a particular axle is close to the actual conditions of a forest road, whose
longitudinal profile is never level, which in turn is the cause of increased wheel loads on the road
surface. For this reason, the analyzed GVW was also determined based on weighing the vehicle on a
weighbridge, and not on the sum of the load on individual axles. The weigh station was selected in
such a way so as to maintain a level road scale, so that the measured axles were kept level.
The method of weighing vehicles used by the Polish Road Transport Inspectorate, which oversees
compliance with permissible axle loads, assumes that measurements are taken with platform scales
embedded in the surface, or by placing pads under unweighted axles, while maintaining a maximum
allowed slope of 2%. The analysis was based on the results of measurements, taking into account
a 5% allowable measurement error in accordance with the recommendations of the Polish Road
Transport Inspectorate.
The obtained results were statistically analyzed with the STATISTICA 12 package. In all analyzed
periods, the distribution of the variables for all parameters differed from the normal distribution.
Therefore, the significance of the differences was mainly determined using the Kruskal–Wallis and
Dunn tests.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of the Parameters of Truck Units and Transported Timber

The study analyzed 376 transports of pine timber (mainly shortwood, 3.7–5.0 m long) at different
times of the year. The parameters characterizing the truck units are presented in Table 1. Timber was
transported using truck units consisting of a truck and trailer (181 observations), truck and semi-trailer
(166), truck and lightweight platform semi-trailer (17), as well as truck and dolly (12) (Figures 1 and 2).
It was found that the total weight of the truck units (GVW) differed significantly depending
on type, ranging from 43.60 (platforms) to 58.80 Mg (trailers). The lowest average value for a given
truck unit, amounting to 45.98 Mg, was noted for deliveries made by a tractor with a platform trailer,
while the highest was for a truck with a dolly (51.44 Mg). The arithmetic mean for all truck units was
50.56 Mg. The largest variation for empty weight (tare), ranging from 13.8–23.7 Mg, was observed for
the truck and semi-trailer, which are also the heaviest means of transport, with an average weight of
20.5 Mg. The average values of 29.07–30.29 m3 for transported timber volume were similar regardless
of the analyzed truck unit.
Forests 2018, 9, 164 4 of 12

Table 1. Selected measurements by type of truck unit.

Truck Unit Measure Mean SD Min Max Q1 Median Q3

Semi-trailer 50.436 2.473 45.000 56.750 48.850 50.225 51.750
Trailer Gross vehicle 51.038 2.531 45.200 58.800 49.250 50.750 52.450
Platform weight (Mg) 45.988 2.223 43.600 51.650 44.500 45.850 46.500
Dolly 51.438 1.810 49.400 54.400 50.100 50.600 53.250
Semi-trailer 20.500 1.112 13.800 23.700 19.800 20.500 20.950
Trailer 20.224 0.879 17.900 22.000 19.700 20.300 20.900
Tare (Mg)
Platform 14.941 0.311 14.220 15.250 14.800 15.000 15.200
Dolly 20.071 0.706 18.200 20.650 19.925 20.300 20.550
Semi-trailer 29.074 1.769 23.960 35.040 28.100 28.710 30.140
Volume of
Trailer 29.707 1.836 25.670 36.790 28.210 29.610 30.860
timber load
Platform 30.292 1.795 27.570 34.500 29.150 30.040 30.420
(m3 )
Dolly 29.982 0.710 28.940 30.940 29.340 30.000 30.620
Semi-trailer 1.030 0.055 0.869 1.159 0.995 1.028 1.071
Trailer Weight of 1 m3 1.038 0.053 0.828 1.179 0.998 1.042 1.077
Platform of load (Mg) 1.025 0.034 0.957 1.075 1.005 1.035 1.045
Dolly 1.046 0.044 0.984 1.136 1.016 1.038 1.073
Notes: SD, standard deviation; Q1, first quartile; Q3, third quartile.

Figure 1. Stages of weighing the wheel axles of a truck unit hauling timber: (a) front axle, (b) second
axle of the truck, (c) third axle of the truck, (d) rear axle.

Figure 2. Examples of truck units: (a) truck and trailer, (b) truck and semi-trailer, (c) truck and
lightweight platform semi-trailer and (d) truck and dolly.

Due to the small number of measurements obtained for the units with a dolly (12) and platform
trailer (17), all statistical analyses were only performed for the units with a trailer and semi-trailer.
The Mann–Whitney test was conducted to examine the significance of the selected features
depending on the type of unit (semi-trailer or trailer). The results obtained are summarized in Table 2.
The statistical analysis only showed a significant difference between the types of truck units for the
weight of 1 m3 of load (Table 2).
Forests 2018, 9, 164 5 of 12

Table 2. Results of the analysis of significant differences between selected measures by type of truck unit.

Gross Vehicle Volume of Timber Weight of 1 m3

Measure Tare (Mg) Load Weight (Mg)
Weight (Mg) Load (m3 ) of Load (Mg)
p 0.0263 0.0183 0.0029 0.1586 0.0011

The Kruskal–Wallis test was performed for trailers and semi-trailers (due to the heterogeneity of
variances) for the significance of GVW, tare, m3 load volume, weight of 1 m3 of load and load weight
between individual measurement periods (a significance level of 0.05 was adopted for the analyses).
The results are summarized in Table 3. In addition, the test of multiple comparisons of mean ranks
was performed. The statistical analysis (Table 3) confirmed the differences between the values of the
studied measures for specific types of truck units depending on when the measurement was taken.

Table 3. Results of the analysis of significant differences between selected measures by type of truck unit.

Type of Truck Volume of Timber Weight of 1 m3

GVW (Mg) Tare (Mg) Load Weight (Mg)
Unit Load (m3 ) of Load (Mg)
Semi-trailer 0.0000 0.0218 0.1316 0.0000 0.0002
Trailer 0.0000 0.0002 0.0312 0.0000 0.0000

The range of the results obtained for the studied measures depending on type of truck unit
and time of measurement is presented in Figures 3–6. In the case of units with a semi-trailer,
statistically-significant differences were found for GVW (Figure 3a), tare (June measurement results
differ from those of November, and this is the only significant difference), load weights (Figure 4a) and
weights of 1 m3 of load (Figure 5a).
Differences in the values of load volume between individual measurement periods turned out to
be not statistically significant (Figure 6a). For units with a trailer, statistically-significant differences
were found for all variables (Figures 3b, 4b, 5b and 6b), although in most cases, these differences
related to November results. In the case of the m3 load volume, significant differences in comparison
to other measurement dates were found only for data from September.
As shown in Figure 5, the differences are not very large, but they are statistically significant for the
weight per cubic meter of transported round wood depending on the transport system used. However,
in particular seasons of the year, not all differences have the same tendency. These differences could
be explained by random factors, which may be related to various tree growth conditions influencing
wood density or water content.

Figure 3. Comparison of average GVW values by measurement date for a unit with a semi-trailer (a)
and a trailer (b).
Forests 2018, 9, 164 6 of 12

Figure 4. Comparison of average load weight values by measurement date for a unit with a semi-trailer
(a) and a trailer (b).

Figure 5. Comparison of average weight of 1 m3 of load values by measurement date for a unit with a
semi-trailer (a) and a trailer (b).

Figure 6. Comparison of average load volume values by measurement date for a unit with a semi-trailer
(a) and a trailer (b).

3.2. Total Weight of Truck Units as a Function of the Tare and Volume of Transported Timber
When loading timber on a forest road, the driver is not sure how much wood to load so as to not
overload the vehicle. Assuming that drivers know the mass of an empty unit (they are informed of
this by the recipients after weighing) and knowing that the results of the measurement of the mass of
1 m3 of cargo are not statistically significant (Table 2), an attempt was made to develop a two-factor
regression model for the GVW (Mg) values as a function of the tare of the truck unit Mg and load
Forests 2018, 9, 164 7 of 12

volume of the timber (m3 ). The presented linear model was developed using the least squares (OLS)
method. The significance of the calculated coefficients was assessed using Student’s t-test.
For the semi-trailers, it took the form of:

GVW = 1.04672 ∗ Tare + 0.996916∗m3 (1)

The constant term was not taken into account because its value turned out to be not statistically
significant. For the developed model, the standard error of the estimation was 1.59297, and the
coefficient of determination R2 was 0.9990. The assessment of the model parameters is presented in
Table 4.

Table 4. Assessment of the model parameters for semi-trailers.

Parameter Parameter Value Standard Error t-Statistic p-Value

Tare 1.04672 0.0662784 15.7927 0.0000
Load volume m3 0.996916 0.0467613 21.3193 0.0000

In the case of a unit with a trailer, the regression model describing the GVW values depending on
vehicle weight (tare) and load volume m3 took the form of:

GVW = 1.25897 ∗ Tare + 0.860483∗m3 (2)

The offset also was not statistically significant in this case. The standard error of the estimation of
the developed equation was 1.59736, and the coefficient of determination R2 was 0.9990. The assessment
of the model parameters is presented in the Table 5.

Table 5. Assessment of the model parameters for trailers.

Parameter Parameter Value Standard Error t-Statistic p-Value

Tare 1.25897 0.0821727 15.3211 0.0000
Load volume m3 0.860483 0.0559386 15.3826 0.0000

3.3. Distribution of the Axle Loads of the Truck Units

The analysis of axle loads was performed for 92 five-axle and 155 six-axle truck units consisting
of a tuck and semi-trailer, as well as 46 five-axle and 135 six-axle units of a truck and trailer. The basic
statistics characterizing the absolute load values of individual axles of the units are presented in Table 6.
The smallest axle load for all units was on the first axle, spanning average values of 74–80 kN, with a
range of results from 42–102 kN. The highest average loads were at the level of 106–113 kN, located on
the second and third axles in the five-axle units, with a maximum single axle load of 170 kN occurring
on the fifth axle.
The analysis performed with the Friedman test showed the existence of statistically-significant
differences in the level of the vehicles’ axle loads. This analysis was performed for groups of different
types of units and different numbers of axles.
It should be noted that for both five- and six-axle truck units, the lowest load is on the first axle.
In the case of five-axle units, the load on the remaining axles is fairly even. However, six-axle units
have the highest load on the second axle (Figure 7), which then decreases in the direction of the last
axle that is similarly loaded as the first axle. Despite the uneven axle load of the six-axle units, their
maximum loads are less than in the case of the five-axle units.
Forests 2018, 9, 164 8 of 12

Table 6. Assessment of the model parameters for trailers.

Axle Load Values (kN)

Unit Axle Mean SD Min Max
1 80.77 4.58 68.40 98.20
2 111.02 11.64 86.60 143.40
five-axle
3 106.54 11.91 77.43 134.90
semi-trailer
4 107.60 19.89 75.90 157.70
5 104.02 20.68 13.50 170.00
1 80.55 6.01 42.56 102.03
2 93.10 14.32 66.40 138.70
six-axle 3 89.28 11.84 63.65 137.75
semi-trailer 4 91.26 19.61 70.71 159.10
5 84.95 13.21 53.30 126.70
6 84.93 14.69 51.70 141.90
1 74.81 6.81 60.33 90.25
2 113.07 10.18 90.25 135.19
five-axle trailer 3 102.06 14.42 74.39 127.59
4 97.93 15.04 73.34 141.08
5 98.63 18.26 39.90 140.03
1 74.45 6.80 57.95 91.20
2 106.94 9.99 83.60 129.20
3 102.41 9.38 82.65 125.88
six-axle trailer
4 80.85 8.74 62.70 104.69
5 80.06 17.90 50.35 168.06
6 72.18 9.51 36.77 101.65

Figure 7. Distribution of the axle loads of the truck units with a semi-trailer (a) and a trailer (b).

4. Discussion
Transport plays an extremely important role in every area of the economy, including the forestry
industry. The efficiency of transport depends on a number of factors, including, among others, the load
capacity of the vehicle, driving time and fuel consumption [29,37]. When transporting timber, the high
Forests 2018, 9, 164 9 of 12

variability of species, timber assortment and moisture content of the wood influence the determination
of the weight of the transported timber and GVW [15,27,29]. In the studies carried out for the same
species of Scots pine, as well as the large-sized assortments, statistically-significant differences were
found for the tested parameters in different periods of the year, as evidenced by the study results of
Owusu-Ababio and Schmitt [30]. Research conducted by Tomczak et al. [26] indicates a large variation
in the density of pine wood. On a longitudinal section of the trunk, the highest density was found
for wood at breast height (0.816 Mg/m3 ), whereas the lowest was from the section closest to the apex
(0.707 Mg/m3 ). This differentiation obviously affects the variability of the weight of the transported
timber. Calculated per 1 m3 , the weight of the wood raw material was estimated at 0.979 Mg. The ratio
of the actual density (0.979 Mg/m3 ) to the density provided in the tables (0.740 Mg/m3 ) amounted
to 1.3:1 [26]. The actual weight of the wood raw material was therefore about 30% higher than the
weight that can be estimated on the basis of the wood density tables developed for the needs of road
transport. The results of the tests of the mass of 1 m3 of cargo in the range of from 0.828–1.179 Mg/m3
(Table 1) also indicate the need to verify the adopted table values. An erroneously-chosen indicator
often contributes to overloading.
In the development of GVW regression equations, linear functions have been adopted, giving the
possibility of their quick and easy application in the forest during timber loading. At the loading site,
the driver obtains information about solid wood volume from the forester, who must be present during
loading and issues a special receipt for each transport. In the case of large-sized wood, all loaded
pieces are specified with their numbers and solid volumes in the receipt. For pulp wood, only one
number and the general solid volume for every single stack are provided on the receipt. By applying
the developed model, a driver can very quickly calculate GVW and determine in a simple way if the
truck is overloaded or not. It seems to be a better solution than taking a tabulated value (0.740 Mg),
which showed differences in real GVW. Of course, it is advisable to develop such dependencies for
other species and assortments and verify the adopted tabulated conversion factors.
For the estimation of the gross vehicle weight model, the solid volume was applied. All obtained
results refer to the large-sized logs measured individually by each piece. In the case of pulp wood,
measured in stacked cubic volume (over bark), conversion factors must be applied to obtain the results
in solid cubic volume (m3 under bark). According to Polish regulations for pine wood, the conversion
factors are 0.65 (for a length of wood of 1.0 or 1.2 m), 0.62 (for a length of 2.0; 2.4 m) and 0.6 (for a
length of 5.0–7.0 m). In all cases, the load of 1 m3 volume contains the wood itself, water and bark.
As was found in the research conducted, the total vehicle weights obtained from actual
measurements differed significantly, ranging from 43.60–58.80 Mg, with an average value of 50.56 Mg
(Table 1). The exceeded permissible truck unit weight (40 Mg in Poland) coincides with the results
presented in the literature [9,28,30–32,37]. The actual GVW results obtained were compared to the
calculated total vehicle masses, in which the mass of the load was determined based on the volume of
transported timber (m3 ) and the conversion value of 0.740 Mg/m3 from the table in effect, which in
this case provided GVW results of about 17% lower than the actual ones [38].
In recent years, a reduction in the weight of empty truck units allowing the loads of transported
timber to be increased and the difference between a unit with a trailer (tare 17.9–22.0 Mg) and a truck
with a semi-trailer (13.8–23.1 Mg) have been observed. The obtained results confirm the possibility
of improving the efficiency of wood transport indicated by Sosa et al. [5] and Šušnjar et al. [39],
in particular through the use of lightweight platform semi-trailers.
The increased total weights of truck units (GVW) are usually the reason that legal limits have been
exceeded: 80 kN for single axles and 115 kN for tandem axles. In a larger percentage of truck units, we
have seen that the permissible total weight is exceeded rather than the axle limits, which coincides with
the results presented by Owus-Ababio and Schmitt [30] and Baumgras [40], or they were not exceeded
at all [39]. In the timber truck units, we observed an increased load on the rear axles (Axles 2 and 3) of
the vehicle or tractor, which is caused by the mounted loading device or the uneven distribution of the
load and results from the demands on the driving axle of the vehicle. Transporting different lengths of
Forests 2018, 9, 164 10 of 12

wood, both shortwood and long logs, does not always allow the load to be spread evenly across all
axles, which is confirmed by the results obtained for Axles 5 and 6 of the six-axle units.

5. Conclusions
The conducted research allowed statistically-significant differences to be confirmed between the
total weights of truck units and load weights in particular seasons of the year. The average total weight
for all units was 50.56 Mg, ranging from 43.60–58.8 Mg. Lower values were observed with the use of
platform trailers; higher ones for trucks with trailers.
The high variability of load volume and mass of 1 m3 of load in relationship to the accepted
normative conversion value (0.740 Mg/m3 ) results in greater actual GVW. In the majority of cases,
these GVW values are over allowable limits.
In the analyzed period, the average weight of delivered timber loads, determined on the basis of
weighing, was 29.76 Mg, oscillating in the range of 23.96–36.79 Mg. The relatively lightest loads, both
in the case of trailers and semi-trailers, were transported in the early spring months, while the heaviest
were in the autumn season. The decisive factor was the date when the wood was harvested and
transported. During the dormant period of tree growth, the water content in wood tissue decreases,
thus contributing to a reduction in the weight of the transported cargo.
In Poland, five- and six-axle units are most often used to transport wood. The load on individual
axles of five-axle units is more or less even. However, for six-axle units, the highest load falls on the
second axle, gradually decreasing on successive axles. From the point of view of achieving smaller
maximum axle loads, timber should be transported with six axle units.
Vehicles are used for 90% of the transport of wood in Poland. As research has shown, in many
cases, vehicles are excessively overloaded in relation to the road traffic regulations in force. In order to
improve transport efficiency, it would be advisable in the future to increase the permissible load limits,
using units with an increased number of axles, based on the example of the Scandinavian countries.

Author Contributions: G.T and T.M. conceived, designed, performed the experiments, and wrote the paper;
R.W. analyzed the data.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Devlin, G.; Lyons, J.; Russel, F.; Joyce, M.; Forest Industry Transport Group. Managing Timber Transport Good
Practice Guide. Solutions for a Growing Irish Forest Harvest. 2014. Available online: https://www.teagasc.ie/media/
website/crops/forestry/advice/Managing-Timber-Transport---Good-Practice-Guide-Volume-1-2014-1.pdf (accessed
on 25 November 2017).
2. Timber Transport Forum. Road Haulage of Round Timber Code of Practice Timber Transport Forum. Road
Haulage of Round Timber Code of Practice. 2012. Available online: http://www.coford.ie/media/coford/
content/links/transport/Road%20Haulage%20of%20Round%20Timber%20Code%20of%20Practice.pdf
(accessed on 5 July 2017).
3. Sieniawski, W. Waloryzacja dostaw drewna do wybranych segmentów przemysłu drzewnego. Valorization
of Wood Supply to Selected Segments of Timber Industry. Ph.D. Thesis, WULS-SGGW, Warsaw, Poland,
June 2012.
4. Devlin, G.; McDonnell, K.; Ward, S. Timber haulage routing in Ireland: An analysis using GIS and GPS.
J. Transp. Geogr. 2008, 16, 63–72. [CrossRef]
5. Sosa, A.; Klvac, R.; Coates, E.; Kent, T.; Devlin, G. Improving Log Loading Efficiency for Improved Sustainable
Transport within the Irish Forest and Biomass Sectors. Sustainability 2015, 7, 3017–3030. [CrossRef]
6. Shaffer, R.M.; Stuart, W.B. A Checklist for Efficient Log Trucking. Virginia Cooperative Extension. 1998. USA.
Available online: https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/54904/420-094.pdf?sequence=1
(accessed on 10 December 2017).
Forests 2018, 9, 164 11 of 12

7. Beardsell, M.G. Decreasing the Cost of Hauling Timber through Increased Payload. Ph.D. Thesis, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA, 1986. Available online: https://vtechworks.
lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/53617 (accessed on 9 September 2017).
8. Lukason, O.; Ukrainski, K.; Varblane, U. Economic benefit of maximum truck weight regulation change for
Estonian forest sektor. Veokite täismassi regulatsiooni muutmise majanduslikud mõjud eesti metsatööstuse
sektorile. Est. Discuss. Econ. Policy 2011, 19. [CrossRef]
9. Hamsley, A.K.; Greene, W.D.; Siry, J.P.; Mendell, B.C. Improving Timber Trucking Performance by Reducing
Variability of Log Truck Weights. South. J. Appl. For. 2007, 31, 12–16.
10. Directive (EU) 2015/719 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 Amending
Council Directive 96/53/EC Laying Down for Certain Road Vehicles Circulating within the Community
the Maximum Authorised Dimensions in National and International Traffic and the Maximum Authorised
Weights in International Traffic (Text with EEA Relevance). Available online: https://publications.europa.
eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/22b313fc-f3bc-11e4-a3bf-01aa75ed71a1/language-en (accessed
on 26 January 2017).
11. Chapter H-3.01 Reg 8. The Vehicle Weight and Dimension Regulations. 2010. Available online: http://www.qp.
gov.sk.ca/documents/English/Regulations/Regulations/H3-01R8.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2017).
12. FSVA Richtlinien für die Standardisierung des Oberbaues von Verkehrsflächen/RStO 01; FGSV. 499. Forschungsges;
für Strassen-und Verkehrswesen: Köln, Cologne, 2001; Volume 499, Available online: https://www.tib.
eu/de/suchen/id/TIBKAT%3A334845300/Richtlinien-f%C3%BCr-die-Standardisierung-des-Oberbaues/
(accessed on 8 January 2018).
13. Pischeda, D. Technical Guide on Harvesting and Conservation of Storm Damaged Timber. 2004. Available
online: http://videntjenesten.ku.dk/filer/Technical-Guide-on-harvesting-and-conservation-of-storm-damaged-
timber.pdf (accessed on 6 January 2017).
14. Wilson, S. Permissible Maximum Weights of Lorries in Europe. Available online: https://www.itf-oecd.org/
permissible-maximum-weights-lorries-europe (accessed on 26 January 2018).
15. Trzciński, G. Analiza Parametrów Technicznych Dróg Leśnych w Aspekcie Wywozu Drewna Samochodami
Wysokotonażowymi. Analysis of Technical Parameters of Forest Roads in Terms on Timber Haulage by High-Tonnage
Vehicles; Warsaw University of Life Sciences-SGGW: Warsaw, Poland, 2011; ISBN 978-83-7583-291-1.
16. Trzciński, G.; Tymendorf, Ł. Dostawy drewna po wprowadzeniu normatywnych przeliczników g˛estości
drewna do określenia masy ładunku. Sylwan 2017, 161, 451–459.
17. Regulation Regulation of the Minister of Infrastructure of 31 December 2002 on the Technical Conditions of
Vehicles and Their Necessary Equipment.Rozporzadzenie. ˛ Rozporzadzenie
˛ Ministra Infrastruktury z Dnia 31
grudnia 2002 r. w Sprawie Warunków Technicznych Pojazdów Oraz Zakresu ich Niezb˛ednego Wyposażenia.
Available online: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20030320262/O/D20030262.pdf
(accessed on 12 January 2018).
18. Oy, E.P. FINLEX®—Ajantasainen lainsäädäntö: Asetus ajoneuvojen käytöstä tiellä 1257/1992. Available online:
https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1992/19921257 (accessed on 26 January 2018).
19. Liimatainen, H.; Nykänen, L. Impacts of Increasing Maximum Truck Weight—Case Finland; Transport Research
Centre Verne, Tampere University of Technology: Tampere, Finland, 2017; Available online: http://www.tut.
fi/verne/aineisto/LiimatainenNyk%C3%A4nen.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2018).
20. Palander, T.; Kärhä, K. Potential Traffic Levels after Increasing the Maximum Vehicle Weight in Environmentally
Efficient Transportation System: The Case of Finland. J. Sustain. Dev. Energy Water Environ. Syst. 2017, 5, 417–429.
[CrossRef]
21. McKinnon, A.C. The economic and environmental benefits of increasing maximum truck weight: The British
experience. Transp. Res. Part Transp. Environ. 2005, 10, 77–95. [CrossRef]
22. Knight, I.; Newton, W.; McKinnon, A.; Palmer, A.; Barlow, T.; McCrae, I.; Dodd, M.; Couper, G.; Davies, H.;
Daly, A.; et al. Longer and/or Longer and Heavier Goods Vehicles (LHVs)—A Study of the Likely Effects if
Permitted in the UK: Final Report. 2008. Available online: https://www.nomegatrucks.eu/deu/service/
download/trl-study.pdf (accessed on 8 December 2017).
23. Letelier, O.B.; Cortada, W.B. Optimization of Load Distribution on Forest Trucks. Available online: http:
//www.fao.org/docrep/X0622E/x0622e0z.htm (accessed on 26 January 2018).
24. Shmulsky, R.; Jones, P.D. Forest Products and Wood Science, 6th ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, UK; Ames,
IA, USA, 2011; ISBN 978-0-8138-2074-3.
Forests 2018, 9, 164 12 of 12

25. Trzciński, G.; Sieniawski, W.; Moskalik, T. Effects of Timber Loads on Gross Vehicle Weight. Folia For. Pol.
Ser. For. 2014, 55, 159–167. [CrossRef]
26. Tomczak, A.; Jakubowski, M.; Jelonek, T.; Wasik,˛ R.; Grzywiński, W. Mass and density of pine pulpwood
harvested in selected stands from the Forest Experimental Station in Murowana Goślina. Acta Sci. Pol. Ser.
Silvarum Colendarum Ratio Ind. Lignaria 2016, 15, 105–112. [CrossRef]
27. Brown, M. The impact of tare weight on transportation efficiency in Australian forest operations. Harvesting
and Operations Program, Research Bulletin 3. 2008. Available online: https://fgr.nz/documents/download/
4740 (accessed on 8 December 2017).
28. Sieniawski, W.; Trzciński, G. Analysis of large-size and medium-size wood supply. In Raport 12/2010;
Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute: Honne, Norway, 2010; pp. 56–57.
29. Ghaffariyan, M.R.; Acuna, M.; Brown, M. Analysing the effect of five operational factors on forest residue
supply chain costs: A case study in Western Australia. Biomass Bioenergy 2013, 59, 486–493. [CrossRef]
30. Owusu-Ababio, S.; Schmitt, R. Analysis of Data on Heavier Truck Weights. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board
2015. [CrossRef]
31. McDonell, K.M.; Devlin, G.J.; Lyons, J.; Russell, F.; Mortimer, D. Assessment of GPS tracking devices and
associated software suitable for real time monitoring of timber haulage trucks 2008. In Annual Report;
COFORD: Ireland, UK; Available online: http://www.coford.ie/media/coford/content/publications/
projectreports/annualreports/2008-AR-E.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2017).
32. Devlin, G.J. Applications and Development of Real-Time GPS Tracking Systems and On-Board Load Sensor
Technology for Wood Transport in Ireland. COFORD, Ireland. 2008. Available online: http://www.coford.ie/media/
coford/content/eventspresentations/events2008/GPSusagefor%20TimberTrucks.pdf (accessed on 7 April 2017).
33. GUS Forestry 2016. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/en/topics/agriculture-forestry/forestry/forestry-
2016,1,7.html (accessed on 26 January 2018).
34. Russell, F. Transportation networks in forest harvesting: Early development of the theory. In Proceedings
of the Conference New Roles of Plantation Forestry Requiring An Appropriate Tending and Harvesting
Operations, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA, 29 September–5 October 2002; Available online:
http://faculty.washington.edu/greulich/Documents/IUFRO2002Paper.pdf (accessed on 7 April 2017).
35. Devlin, G.J.; McDonnel, K. Assessing Real Time GPS Asset Tracking for Timber Haulage. Open Transp. J.
2009, 3. [CrossRef]
36. McDonald, T.P.; Haridass, K.; Valenzuela, J. Mileage savings from optimization of coordinated trucking.
In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Council on Forest Engineering, Southern Research Station,
Auburn, AL, USA, 6–9 June 2010; pp. 1–11. Available online: https://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/ja/2010/ja_
2010_mcdonald_002.pdf (accessed on 7 January 2017).
37. Šušnjar, M.; Horvat, D.; Zorić, M.; Pandur, Z. Axle Load Determination of Truck with Trailer and Truck with
Semitrailer for Wood Transportation. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2011, 32, 379–388.
38. Trzciński, G.; Moskalik, T.; Wojtan, R.; Tymendorf, Ł. Variability of loads and gross vehicle weight in timber
transportatio. Sylwan 2017, 161, 1026–1034.
39. Šušnjar, M.; Horvat, D.; Zorić, M.; Pandur, Z.; Vusić, D.; Tomašić, Ž. Comparison of real axle loads and
wheel pressure of truck units for wood transportation with legal restrictions. In Proceedings of the FORMEC
Conference, Pushing the Boundaries with Research and Innovation in Forest Engineering, Graz, Austria,
9–13 October 2011; Available online: https://www.formec.org/images/proceedings/2011/formec2011_
paper_susnjar_etal.pdf (accessed on 8 January 2017).
40. Baumgras, J.E. Better Load-Weight Distribution is Needed for Tandem-Axle Logging Trucks. Research Paper,
U.S. Forest Service. 1976. Available online: https://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/
research_papers/pdfs/scanned/OCR/ne_rp342.pdf (accessed on 6 February 2017).

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).